completely without resources, those dependant on the charity of others. “It’s hard for us to envision third world poverty,” she said. “Try to imagine living on one or two dollars a day. Franz Fanon wrote a book, ‘The Wretched of the Earth’ and its title has stuck in my mind. Maybe, such people are praised because they are more likely to become dependant on the generosity of God,” she suggested.
As for the “Kingdom of God,” Melanie reminded them of some of the options she had laid out during the previous week’s discussion and urged them to be patient. “Perhaps,” she said, “the purpose of the Gospel is to lead the reader gradually into an understanding of the concept, even to know what it means to participate in something only gradually understood.” She urged them to look at the other verses and see how exactly alien to modern culture they were. Blessedness of the sorrowful and the meek falls uncomfortably on modern ears. She recalled Mark Twain’s dismissal of the Beatitudes as “immense sarcasms.”
She realized yet again how difficult it was to do any kind of justice to the whole chapter in the two hours available and regretfully clicked onto the next section:
“You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has become tasteless, in what way can it regain its saltiness? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown away and trodden on by the passers by.
You are the light of the world; a town cannot be hid if built on a hilltop.
Nor is a lamp lighted to be put under a bushel, but on the lamp-stand; and then it gives light to all in the house.
Just so let your light shine before all men, in order that they may see your holy lives and may give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.”
It was a relief to encounter something a bit more straightforward. She could get away with a reminder of the value of salt in the ancient world. Andrew made the helpful comment: “I am surprised that the statements are so definite. ‘You are the salt’ and ‘You are the light’ could be seen as a bit of wishful thinking.” He paused. “Or perhaps Jesus saw potential in unlikely people.” Stephen suggested that it might have been addressed to the disciples. “You can’t get more ‘unlikely’ than that”. Al apologized that they had passed over the section in Chapter 4 about the calling of the disciples. “Evidently they were an unpromising bunch,” he said.
Pushing ahead, Melanie displayed the next section:
“Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.
Solemnly I tell you that until Heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the Law until all has taken place.
Whoever therefore breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to break them, will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever practices them and teaches them, he will be acknowledged as great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
For I assure you that unless your righteousness greatly surpasses that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will certainly not find entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.”
It was easy to understand the idea of Jesus giving the Law its completion but there was much debate about the apparent insistence on keeping the Law in every detail. Stephen knew that there were six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Law. Melanie was afraid that he might want to recite them all. But he contented himself with the question: “Does this mean that modern day followers of Jesus should follow them all, including keeping the seventh day rather than the first? Should we all become Seventh Day Adventists? And what about the Kosher food regulations?” Martha wondered if this was part of the Sermon on the Mount comes from a very early period when Jesus thought of himself as nothing more than a reformer of Judaism. “Later in the Gospel,” she said, “Jesus brings a child forward as a model of the Kingdom. You know the bit where he says ‘unless you repent and become as this little child, you will never enter the Kingdom.’ The child is the least likely person to be meticulous in the keeping of the Law and its commandments.”
Again it was necessary to move along, with a reminder from Melanie that their discussions were meant to open doors on various possibilities and that reading during the week would make a big difference. “I sound like my Grade 9 English teacher,” she lamented.
So now it was time to look at the section which dealt with “anger management”:
“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’ and whoever commits murder will be answerable to the magistrate.
But I say to you that every one who becomes angry with his brother shall be answerable to the magistrate; that whoever says to his brother ‘Raca,’ shall be answerable to the Sanhedrin; and that whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.
If therefore when you are offering your gift upon the altar, you remember that your brother has a grievance against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go and make friends with your brother first, and then return and proceed to offer your gift.
Come to terms without delay with your opponent while you are yet with him on the way to the court; for fear he should obtain judgement from the magistrate against you, and the magistrate should give you in custody to the officer and you be thrown into prison. I solemnly tell you that you will certainly not be released till you have paid the very last penny.”
There was much discussion. Did the text imply that the thought or the word of violence was as bad as the act itself? Surely, there was no way to avoid the thought and resisting it was the essence of virtue? As Andrew said, “It sets the bar too high!”
Someone had discovered that “Raca” meant something like “blockhead” and commented that it was an Aramaic word. This gave rise to discussion about the language which Jesus spoke and the reference to scholarly opinion that it was Aramaic at home and probably Greek in the marketplace. Webster (again!): “Did you know that ‘Gehenna’ refers to the Valley of Hinnon where the city of Jerusalem disposed of its rubbish. Evidently, it was a scary place where fires burned constantly. Among other things, bodies of dead criminals ended up in the valley of Hinnon. Jerusalem must have been a smelly, smoky city!”
Melanie was interested in the role of the law courts, as though the teachings of Jesus might be enforceable by law. They agreed that it was all a bit mysterious.
Al asked about gifts at the altar. “Should the church reject a gift from someone if they know that there is an unresolved conflict? I wonder if any church practices such a policy?” They all agreed that it was unlikely!
Some similar comments were made about the next section:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’
But I tell you that whoever looks at a woman and cherishes lustful thoughts has already in his heart become guilty with regard to her. If therefore your eye, even the right eye, is a snare to you, tear it out and away with it; it is better for you that one member should be destroyed rather than that your whole body should be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand is a snare to you, cut it off and away with it; it is better for you that one member should be destroyed rather than that your whole body should go into Gehenna.
It was also said, ‘If any man puts away his wife, let him give her a written notice of divorce.’ But I tell you that every man who puts away his wife except on the ground of unfaithfulness causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her when so divorced commits adultery.”
It
